OT - Washington Post Piece about Medical Standards in the NFL

The Washington Post has a long piece about how injuries in the NFL may not be treated the same way as they would outside of football. The injury to RGIII in the Skins' playoff game has been the subject of much debate.

“We hear all the time that players know what they signed up for, know the risk,” said Smith, the players’ union chief. “And with respect to those players and their beliefs, that’s fine. We are not challenging what they believe. Nonetheless, the employers still have an obligation to provide a workplace as safe as possible.”

One of the most illuminating parts of this piece, in my opinion, comes when they talk about the disparity in the level of detail given to players about their injury versus the level of detail provided to the team. It seems to me that "informed consent" is an essential component to intelligently evaluating risk and that, in the end, the players should be fully advised of their condition.

Smith is also correct, I believe. At the end of the day, it is the team's obligation to provide a safe workplace, or at least as safe as possible. There might be only so much you can do in the NFL, but it seems clear that more could definitely be done. Keeping your employees fully informed of incidents (whether it happens to the employee or others) is part of that in most other workplaces, including mine (we have linemen, substation people, and others who do dangeous work), but we are also rquired by law to have a certain level of reporting as well as knolwedge sharing.

I would have to think that having outside medical services which are not beholden to team management would help some. Removing team interests from the equation and making it something closer to the patient-doctor relationship with full disclosure probably would extend some careers (and therefore maximize the success) of quite a few players.

If you're generation company had 4,473 reportable incidents of injury in 2011, MIOSHA would be setting up a permanent office. At that point, federal OSHA would probably be hanging around too. Your employees are likely (potentially) exposed to all sorts of things like Pb/Cd, asbestos, PCBs, etc. and, yes, the rules for medical monitoring and informing them of their exposure and potential health effects are significant.*

Clearly, the NFL does not have to deal with OSHA. Just as clearly, being a substation electrician is quite different from being an NFL player in terms of acknowledged risks inherent in the employment ... though anyone who's seen the more grizzly arc flash safety videos would probably chose getting tackled by Ray Lewis. I'm with you, not sharing the full medical records with the players is the disturbing part of this story. It undermines the NFL statements about being committed to safety as well as the argument that the players are making an informed choice.

*From the perspective an industrial hygienist who's been tied to a power generatio company for the last two years as a third-party consultant.

is listed a a main example of what should change. Cindrich is quoted as saying that was a horror show, that "they would let him do that." I see it completely differently--it is up to Griffin, and Griffin alone, to decide whether or not he should continue playing on a bad knee. It should not be up to some outside expert charged with protecting the player, in fact that player is the only one who should make the decision. RG3 knew exactly what could happen to him, he stayed in anyway, then it got worse. That is a perfect example of making your own choices for good or ill, and that is what we should be protecting.

No, I disagree. I don't want to live in a society that lets workers kill themselves while employers hand them the opportunity. Just because someone is willing to do something, does not make it ok and absolve everyone around them of responsibility.

Given your "logic" the miners at the Upper Big Branch mine (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/10westvirginia.html?_r=0) that exploded killing everyone are the one's at fault because they continued to work there. The negligence of the company doesn't matter. They chose to continue working. They knew the dangers. It's their fault they died. Employeers can do anything they want. If an employee stays there, the employee has accepted all risk and it's the employee's fault if something bad happens to them. There is zero reponsibility on the part of the employer.

By your "logic" the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory tragedy (google it) was the fault of the stupid workers who worked there. They knew the doors were locked. They continued to work there, thus they killed themselves. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory is the real victim here!

understand my point at all, by virtue of that ludicrous comparision. Look, you already "live in a country" that lets workers choose to violate doctors orders at their own risk. I can walk out of any hospital in America even if a doctor tells me that to do so would put my life in danger. If I have pnemonia and a doctor tells me that to go to work the next day would be put me at risk of making that worse and possibly causing a more serious illness, even death (people do die of pnemonia) I can choose to ignore that if I wish (not that I would). The reason we allow that in this country is that we judge that adults should be allowed to make their own decisions as long as doing that does not harm another person. That's the kind of country I'd like to live in.

Oh and RG3? It IS his responsibility that he got hurt worse, EXACTLY as he stated after the game

I'd argue that RGIII didn't know what would happen to him. He thought his injury was one he could play through. However, RGIII is not a trained physician. Moreover, in the middle of a competative game, he'd be extremely biased towards staying in. When you're on the sidelines, you feel like you're letting the team down. Someone in his position is the LAST person you'd want making the decisions there. It's exactly why the concussion rules have become a lot stricter. Sure, the player may feel fine after shaking off the cobwebs. But one more good hit could kill him. So he stays out.

I disagree with you for a couple of reasons. For starters, there are often situations where a player is not in a position to know the extent of his injury due to the nature of the injury. Head trauma comes to mind right off the bat. As far as RGIII's injury goes, there are some injuries, where playing may exacerbate the condition and create a greater level of discomfort, but won't necessarily create a risk of serious further damage.

The other reason is that the team has a monetary interest in the player. I have never seen a balance sheet for an NFL team, but players are considerd assets (and they are depreciable assets). The owners have invested consierable money in a player and they have a huge interest in the outcome. While the "win now" mentality is very strong, one would think that there is a real interest in protecting your investment. With a QB like Griffin, that is certainly the case. Then there are not so small issues like liability and the perception of the fan base.

Object lesson Number 76 in "Why the NFL is ruining the game of football."

God, I hate the NFL.

I don't understand it. I don't understand why the Detroit Lions, for instance, have a following greater than, say, Central Michigan. Are we supposed to now be fans of Reggie Bush? I remember Reggie Bush. An outlaw player for Southern Cal. Whose team was forced into forfeiting games, and whose Heisman Trophy was rescinded. If Reggie Bush is still playing football, there's no way you could get me to root for -- or even have any interest in -- his team.